They are so desperate right now- digging up old baloney that went no where scientifically and since it won't impress any professionals!

Logged

I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

"Some with control groups, etc." That sounds like good science, as well as good writing.

Quote

Miller’s study found that the small research group did very well with their Narconon program -- 80% being drug abstinent, and although 30% had had criminal histories before Narconon, 0% did at the time of the survey.

Narconon can erase criminal histories!

Quote

“We only had about 20 students then,” says Patty, now Executive Director of Friends of Narconon, International, a drug education support group based in Pasadena, California, which provides drug ed videos to some 8,000 schools across the United States. “Mr. Miller studied the results on 10 of them, primarily teenagers, and found they were doing pretty damn well. Kids are hard to help, as they don’t have drug-free lives prior to addiction to compare their drug abused behavior to.” The New London program was actively supported, reports a March 7, 1978 article from The News of Niantic, Connecticut, by senior and other volunteer groups, providing furniture, curtains, helping with a newsletter, etc.

Kids are hard to help, as they don’t have drug-free lives prior to addiction to compare their drug abused behavior to?

I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

I was the ED NN CT. Patty O'Neill worked for me. I can attest these numbers were all fabricated.

Hey Patty! I couldn't believe they were dumb enough to make a big deal out of that, knowing that you are out and could shed light on it. It's so (un)funny to see these other "studies" as well - I mean if anyone really looks at them they can easily spot the holes. I may be writing something about the ones listed for 2007 and 2009...

How? I made them all up. Personally. I knew the numbers were awful, I knew they wanted to show great results. Being a Scio I thought oh well, greatest good and all that and so just pulled those numbers right out of my ass.

Consider this my confession. I personally fudged all the numbers because I knew it's what they wanted. There was no study. I just made them up.

Good job, Luke. It's so common that they ignore the data that doesn't fit in to make their numbers work out. It would shake things up significantly to have a professional statistician take a look at their "studies". Just like it shakes things up to have legitimate addiction specialists evaluate their program methods, in theory and in practice.

How? I made them all up. Personally. I knew the numbers were awful, I knew they wanted to show great results. Being a Scio I thought oh well, greatest good and all that and so just pulled those numbers right out of my ass.

Consider this my confession. I personally fudged all the numbers because I knew it's what they wanted. There was no study. I just made them up.

Thanks, Patty. Nice to have you calling BS too. I know it's been a while since you were at Narconon in Connecticut (and since they closed), but have you noticed any differences in the way the Narconons operate generally since you were there, based on more recent reports you've read?